By Mitchel Wilson
In Primas v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals overruled the lower trial court for dismissing a female, African-American Police Commander claims of sex and race discrimination, and remanded them for trial. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff’s complex theories on a manipulated retirement had sufficient merit to survive a summary judgment motion
Evelyn Primas worked for the District of Columbia Metro Police Department (MPD) since 1978. She achieved the rank of Commander and served as the Director of the Court Liaison Division. In 2007, a new female Chief, Cathy Lanier sought to restructure the department. Many divisions were rearranged, and many officers were demoted.
In reevaluating positions, the Chief Lanier concluded that the Court Division was too small to warrant the rank of Commander. The Chief explained that Primas could stay in the position, but she would be demoted two ranks to Captain; She also reminded Primas, who was two years from retirement, that she could retire now. Faced with those choices, Primas decided to retire. She explained in her court pleadings, because she did not want to work at the reduced pay, retiring at the lower rank would hurt her pension, and because she did not want to explain to the judges, attorneys, and other court employees why she had been demoted.
A few days after Primas retired, the Chief offered the position to a younger white man but at the position of Inspector, one rank above Captain. Primas then confronted Chief Lanier, who explained that she realized “last minute,” that the rank should be higher to elicit respect from judges and attorneys.
Although Lanier maintains that she was taken aback at the accusation, she nonetheless declined to offer Primas her old position at the rank of Inspector because she had already given it to Westover and thought him the best person to implement papering reforms.
Primas then requested the position at Inspector, but the Chief declined because she had already offered the position to the other officer and felt he was “perfect” for the position. The Chief offered Primas a position as Inspector, but in another division. Primas declined and filed suit.
The court ruled that Primas established that she is a member of a protected class by being female and a minority and that she suffered an adverse employer action by facing a demotion. Because the Chief asserted she had a legitimate reason to demote Primas the court reasoned that it must resolve one central question:
Has the employee produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the employer’s asserted non-discriminatory reason was not the actual reason and that the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee on the basis of race, color, or sex?
Here, the appellate court concluded, although the Chief is also female, the fact that the officer who replaced Primas is male, is enough to create a factual issue for a jury. Furthermore, that the Chief elevated the rank of the position for the male officer further supported an inference that the Chief may have demoted Primas in the hope that she would retire.
Lanier’s only explanation is that she realized “at the last minute” that a higher rank would lend the Director the authority necessary to carry out her responsibilities, the timing of that alleged realization was suspicious.
The court further found that the Chief’s state motivations lacked credibility based on her knowledge of Primas’ experience in the position.
Given the Chief’s testimony that Primas faced resistance even as a Commander, a jury hearing the Chief’s testimony could reasonably infer that she knew from the start that the Captain rank would be inappropriate for the position. And given Chiefs quick selection of a white man to replace Primas, the jury could infer that race or sex discrimination motivated her actions.
